About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 4, Moore 3, Antonini 2, The City 2, Mta 1, Sugaya 1, City 1, An Eir 1, Thomas Edison 1, Howell 1, California 1, Steven 1, Alicia John-baptiste 1, Ramadan 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    July 19, 2012
    1:00 - 1:30pm PDT  

1:00pm
the concern the supervisors raised. commissioner borden: retried to schedule ceqa training for the commission, and i think that we might want to invite the board of supervisors. particularly as it pertains to project description and i have looked through my but, there is not a lot i have found that seems to lay out what is included in that description. it would be great to have training and talk a little bit more about that. obviously, the project sponsors are there to benefit their project. i am not really sure what is considered an adequate or three a project directive.
1:01pm
maybe this training will help us understand that. also, it is helpful anyway. >> perhaps we can discuss the benefits. i will definitely appreciate it. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i will share a few items with you regarding yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. the commission will meet only one time this month because of the july 4 holiday. yesterday, they reviewed and unanimously approved an expansion and rehabilitation of the contributing building to the market in the conservation district. the planning commission will
1:02pm
review the entitlement associated with this project. the commission also completed its review of the entitlements for the veterans, the memorial complex across the street. there were two components to the review. the exteriors of the building is landmarked. the interior is not included, but the designating the ordinance requires to provide review and comment to the board of trustees of any major alterations that occurred to the interior spaces. after about an hour of public testimony, the commission approved the appropriateness to the building. it began deliberations on the interior work. there were members of the public including many veterans from a variety of different posts, it
1:03pm
was not in support of the proposal to rehabilitate the interior of the building. the charge was to really looked at what the plans are to articulate in terms of those in significant spaces and to the concerns raised by the public is an ongoing tenant and landlord dispute. it is related to the use of the property and not really the brick and mortar of the interior of the veterans building. with that, the commission determined that the proposal does sensitively address all of the significant interior spaces. those comments were forwarded to the board of trustees until they continue their entitlement process. the department received a grant
1:04pm
from the office of historic preservation to develop design guidelines for buildings. historic commercial storefronts to minimize impact for the public realm, we anticipate that project will began sometime next summer. that concludes my report unless you have any questions. commissioner antonini: think you for your report. in regards to the veterans comments, i know much of this has to do with concerns that they have adequate space for their operations. as we know with historical preservation, one of the things that we look at is historical purposes of the building. historically, it was a veterans building. their presence could be
1:05pm
interpreted as historical events. it has to be recognized to make sure it is preserved. the that as part of what i was hearing to them. is there an exterior edition that is being considered? has that been eliminated? >> it was originally proposed as part of the project and removed. the alterations were selected terracotta replacements. spot replacement by some windows and the replacement of the roof, it will be replaced with the zinc coating proved that looks identical to what is existing and replacement of the historic skyline is that are visible from the public right of way. commissioner sugaya: in terms of
1:06pm
the scope, the interior comments pertaining to was going on specifically? >> there was a motion to give very minor feedback on was a project could be refined. there are fine with the project as proposed. >> if there are no further questions, we can move forward on your calendar, you are now at general public comment. the members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public. with the exception of agenda items, they may not be addressed in this category, only at the
1:07pm
time the item is reached on the calendar. each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes each, keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. >> my name is steven, i am the founder of the preservationists. i came by and told you that the objective of our club is to conduct ane ir, -- an eir, and i would like to give you my secretary's number. 916-281-8268 if anyone would
1:08pm
like to respond to my request. i realize we are a small group of activists. you're curious about our neighborhood of, i have written a draft and contract in the club with a little more legal clout. i have found out that the guidelines, any person may submit any information in any form to assist a lead agency that i assume you are in preparing of an individual study. i can use some of the facilities, the initial findings are stunning. my group will continue to try to
1:09pm
position ourselves outside of the media first, to expose the fact that the tower on telegraph hill and the art has never had an environmental impact report. this area that i consider to be a depository for all kinds of chemicals can contain groundwater, a significant amount that is dangerous to the public. as well as learning about the great depression. there are chemicals that are in hong themselves for the run off or the ground water, which is expensive for me to get to. if there are indications that the hall report should be mandated from you, i hope to be able to speak to you through the
1:10pm
sierra club, it supports us and i severely hope that we can hear back from you at some point in time, at least about the possibility of the first eir for this magnanimous spot that has had mining, and we really don't know what is out there. i hope that someone from your department can contact us so we can start a discussion. have a lovely day. >> i will work for a small business holding company. the of like to start by announcing tomorrow is the start of ramadan.
1:11pm
it is consuming any food. the documents and public, hope you guys find a lot of reward and you forget about some of the scrutiny that comes across the desk. and take some time to focus on some of the rewards that we have that work and the growth of where we want to take the city. the beautiful architectural project in the past, maybe someone who sees that will move forward in the future. i found out that the church, if is a methodist church that moved out west. the people that inspired how it
1:12pm
was laid out is thomas edison. i brought 10 outside the box said he is going forward. the tenants, is a small room paying rent. it transitions to number three, along income housing. they just repeatedly rents it out. it is a public utility.
1:13pm
if we see illegal things happening in the finance industry, we will go in and regulate. silent ambulances, proactively working to fill spaces. it is trying to pair with the owners. the planning committee. >> any further public comment? >> we have pulled item three of
1:14pm
the consent calendar, so we will take up the item now. for 100 california history. >> the project sponsor for previously approved project in order to extend the performance time for three years to july 19, 2015. the project was approved and we construct a six-story vertical addition for 6000 square feet of office space, reaching a total height of 267 feet. and a retail space measuring 1500 square feet. i would like to give my presentation and keep it brief, i will havbe happy to answer any
1:15pm
questions you might have. >> commissioners, thank you. i do not have any presentation but i know one commissioner has a question for me. >> will take public comment then. any public comment on this item? commissioner moore: when this project was approved, i was a full supporter of a, the only thing i want to assure, the way the extension is phrased, i want to make sure there are no other amendments other than the extension we are improving. i would request the project be reviewed. items that need to be asked for
1:16pm
a time extension. i am partially puzzled by the change, and i am puzzled by a different name of the architect. >> i would defer to the product sponsor for changes on the plan. there are no changes on the project. all of the original conditions would apply to the project and the drawings as approved in 2008 would continue to serve as exhibit a. i would ask the project sponsor that maybe they come up and clarify that. >> these -- i am not sure, with respect to this. i think the designer has changed
1:17pm
firms. we are still working with him. right now, it is just the extension. commissioner moore: that is all i needed to know. the drawings are slightly different but that is neither here nor there. the commission was sensitive about the use of retail, what it will look like, what we are expecting. that is another discussion. i want to make sure that we are on track with the basic approval ideas that were in front of us. i fully support the extension because i'd be in the project worthy of extension. >commissioner antonini: i am fully supportive of thas i was n 2008, but is there prospect that we might be moving forward on
1:18pm
this? and increased market for commercial space. commissioner moore: i make a motion to approve the project as proposed. >> second. >> a motion on the floor for approval as proposed. [roll call vote] thank you, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. you are on item nine. amendments to the transit impact development fee. >> the afternoon, commissioners. alicia john-baptiste from these
1:19pm
and francisco transportation agency. we would modify and impact the transit development fee. it is an impact fee that provides the city with funding to offset the impact of net new development on the city's transit system. money generated hot is directed to the mta and used to fund capital improvements and system maintenance. it applies a citywide and is levied on most non-residential use. it is considered it charitably as exempt. certain land use, automotive services, and i already covered it charitably eggs of project. new projects are given a prior
1:20pm
use credit when the site they are occupying has been active within the preceding five years. when a project comes in with a change of use application, the difference between the proposed use and the rate is such a difference exists. the ordinance updating was introduced at the same time as an ordinance that would establish a the sustainability program. both of those zero were introduced and co-sponsored and introduced in may of this year. it is a proposal that would make the city's actual practices consistent with and the policy objectives. they would provide comprehensive citywide transportation system improvements. at the same time, mitigate
1:21pm
impacts on the transportation system. because the program requires an environmental impact report, we are expecting it will be completed in the later part of 2013, and it serves as the city's mechanism to offset the impact on the transit system. once it is implemented, if it is adopted, it will no longer be collected. state law requires that we update the study is underlying the impact fees every five years. they completed the study last year, and in addition to base rates, they have not been increased since 2004 and an annual indexing which is proposed by the comptroller's office. and has not kept pace with the cost increase associated with providing additional service to meet the needs of new
1:22pm
developments over the past eight years. the current is inconsistent with the way the impact fees are assessed and administered under the planning cut. to give a little bit of background, it was first enacted in 1981. there was a recognition that build out what require additional transit service. there is a belief that the downtown core will be primarily a center for office, and over time, that has shifted. the mta conducted his a study,
1:23pm
it has an impact on the transit system. it was updated to apply city- wide for most commercial uses. in 2010, the article 4 of the planning code was established making the planning department responsible for assessing and imposing impact fees. in to the planning cut, the responsibility for improving and collecting the fees shifted away at that point. as i mentioned, they completed a study and the work was done at the same time as the city completed the sustainability program. it is not propose to apply to
1:24pm
residential. the ordinance will expand and change how it is applied. howell will provide a greater consistency with definitions and terms in the planning code and provide a clarification for imposing collecting fees. it changes the ray, increasing most of them. in terms of the application changes, the updated establishment establishes a threshold. currently is 3000 gross square feet. the department analyzed development impacts and determines how it impacts -- it
1:25pm
is the exemption threshold. the area plan impact fees. it would make it consistent with that analytical work done. how these are treated under the planning code. the updated makes it consistent with the sustainability program. this is to a knowledge that all that new development has an impact on the transportation system. recognize that there is time required for capital fund- raising for those types of uses, they propose a grandfather ing period not to be subject to the tidf. i will discuss that a little bit more.
1:26pm
it will be included -- they were able to analyze those impacts. it will apply to property beneficially owned in the city. it also clarifies the uses of that are accessory he uses exempted from the field are nonetheless responsible if those accessories as are not in and of themselves exempt. it changes the definition of the band in use. it ties the definition back to the planning code and the principally permitted uses never considered abandoned.
1:27pm
if the project were being proposed, there would never be a time frame for an activity that would trigger the prior use credits. it is a time frame for nonconforming in traditional uses of three years. the update also clarifies that the change in use fee will be based on the existing -- it would not tied to the existing stuff. there were a handful of definition changes, these are all to bring these definitions and consistency without planning code defines these terms. the citation was added to the
1:28pm
child care facilities, the definition for medical and health services was modified to exclude animal services. this is largely because the trip generation rate from other cultural uses, and finally, the definition is modified to exclude laundering. the update of some exchanges to clarify and simplify the roles of the mta, the planning department in assessing and collecting a fee. planning assesses the feet and dbi collect the fee. and this, again, as a result of the fact that it was moved over from the administrative code of the planning code.
1:29pm
a this is a transition of responsibility. in addition, the future updates to the provisions of the planning cut section which hooks up analyzing the fees. the current rates of the draft ordinance, the final column shows the rate that is allowed under the nexus analysis, so it shows you how much each land use will need to be charged to fully offset the impact of each of those development types. the proposed rates is more than was allowed under the nexus. it will increase and is proposing to go down. this table here provide